Allow Capital Ships, Supercarriers, and Titans in Highsec

[Bronson_Hughes]

@Solonius_Rex

Yeah, people have brought up things like Mini-carriers, basically battleships that field fighters. I dont see the point in having ships that are just there to breach the middle ground.

I think adding fighters to any ship smaller than carriers is a bad idea. They’re hard enough to balance as it is on capital platforms. That kind of on-grid power projection should not come lightly.

@Solonius_Rex

Thing is, dreadnoughts arent that expensive, when you think about it. Tech 2 battleships are about on par with Dreads, and both Blackops/marauders and Dreads fill a specific role. I understand why people would want things like dreads into Hisec, because of how the EHP of a citadel does not change whether it be in hisec or null. The problem is, they are still pretty powerful in their own right, and without a good counter, i dont want to see people fly them through hisec.

Cost shouldn’t be the factor in balance, unless you’re talking mineral cost of T1 platforms. The issue is the huge gap in EHP and DPS, not the gap (or lack thereof) in price.

I’m still on the fence as to whether capitals should ever be allowed in hisec. At most, I think dreads and carriers could get away with limited access to the lower end of hisec (i.e. 0.7 and below) and some additional elements of risk (perpetual suspect, docking timers, etc.). But, like with the intermediate ship between battleships and dreads, there’s no real need for it. The closest things to proper justifications for such a move I’ve heard (full disclaimer, one of them is my own) are centered on lore which is kind of a sketchy way to handle game balance.

Hard no to Titans, Supers, and Rorqs in hisec anywhere though, and probably no FAXes either. Also hard no to “buying” access directly through ISK or PLEX as that would grossly favor large blocs over individuals or smaller groups.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Bronson_Hughes

Cost shouldn’t be the factor in balance, unless you’re talking mineral cost of T1 platforms. The issue is the huge gap in EHP and DPS, not the gap (or lack thereof) in price.

Yeah, but it seems to be a common gripe with people like the OP, who thinks that because carriers cost X, they should be equal to Y that costs similar.

Not too worried about DPS, cause Dreads are pretty specific in what they can and cant do. HAWs might be a problem. But yes, the EHP is probably the biggest problem Dreads have, that need a counter.

@Bronson_Hughes

Hard no to Titans, Supers, and Rorqs in hisec anywhere though, and probably no FAXes either. Also hard no to “buying” access directly through ISK or PLEX as that would grossly favor large blocs over individuals or smaller groups.

Yup, anyone thinking that bringing in supers into hisec would benefit new or casual players, is delusional.

[Sabus_Narian]

Instead of wasting the ISD’s time, why not try and comment on the points that this thread brings up?

[Wacky_Wobbler_Wibble]

Let me some this up for you

Not. Going. To. Happen

[Sabus_Narian]

And if it happens what are you going to do, leave the game?

[Sabus_Narian]

Cost shouldn’t be the factor in balance, unless you’re talking mineral cost of T1 platforms. The issue is the huge gap in EHP and DPS, not the gap (or lack thereof) in price.

It should for t1 hulls. The issue now is as you say, the cost of a t1 carrier hull far beats any other comparative ship, marauder, faction battleship etc. Strong nerfs to carriers, buffs to sub-caps, or the equalization of ability, or allowing capitals across highsec, helps balance the scales, since a ship is no longer overpowered as much if everyone is able to use it.

I’m still on the fence as to whether capitals should ever be allowed in hisec. At most, I think dreads and carriers could get away with limited access to the lower end of hisec (i.e. 0.7 and below) and some additional elements of risk (perpetual suspect, docking timers, etc.). But, like with the intermediate ship between battleships and dreads, there’s no real need for it. The closest things to proper justifications for such a move I’ve heard (full disclaimer, one of them is my own) are centered on lore which is kind of a sketchy way to handle game balance.

That only hurts highsec, people complain about null having influence, under your idea nullsec can lockdown 0.5 systems and highsec still has no ability to access capital ships. Lore can always be written to benefit the game, you do not need to be restricted by lore, lore reflects the developers and the game, not the other way around. I’m for full capital access, I have no problem with paying for the big hulls to enter highsec, because highsecers can use their strength of slow earnings but safe storage to be able to afford the fee. And so long as your in highsec, and safety is green and you are not in a war, your ship and investment is safe.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Sabus_Narian

Instead of wasting the ISD’s time, why not try and comment on the points that this thread brings up?

I did, but it didnt seem to matter to you.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Sabus_Narian

That only hurts highsec, people complain about null having influence, under your idea nullsec can lockdown 0.5 systems and highsec still has no ability to access capital ships.

As opposed to nullsec locking down all of hisec? Kinda like, in your idea?

@Sabus_Narian

And so long as your in highsec, and safety is green and you are not in a war, your ship and investment is safe.

And thats the difference between what you think what EVE is about, and what developers, the creators of this game, know what EVE is about.

You should never be safe, if you are undocked, anywhere in EVE. Anywhere.

[Eivar]

@Sabus_Narian

I certainly don’t want to be the cause of a highsec stampede! The release of capitals into highsec needs to be done well, and if it is done well, will be a massive benefit to the game.

I’m all for hearing new ideas but this not a good idea, tbh. Too much would have to change for this to happen “the right way.” You’d have better luck asking for a new class of ships to be what you want, but I can honestly say that HS would not appreciate it, as that’s where nublets begin this game, and that speaks to acquisition and retention, not to mention it’s already rough trading in certain locations, so no…please, no.

[Sabus_Narian]

You’d have better luck asking for a new class of ships to be what you want, but I can honestly say that HS would not appreciate it, as that’s where nublets begin this game, and that speaks to acquisition and retention, not to mention it’s already rough trading in certain locations, so no…please, no.

Fair argument. But remember that if they are released, it should be done in a way that new players cannot be harmed, newbies should be able to get into these great ships eventually, not be attacked when they just get started.

[Sabus_Narian]

I did, but it didnt seem to matter to you.

And I like that you do, continue to make arguments please, it helps the thread and the ideas discussed here.

[Sabus_Narian]

As opposed to nullsec locking down all of hisec? Kinda like, in your idea?

Nullsec cannot lockdown all of highsec, the only potential nuisance that nullsec can do is attack player citadels, in which case you can defend, or simply live out of NPC stations or use other people’s citadels. And doing this in highsec risks invasion in their nullsec space by another alliance.

And thats the difference between what you think what EVE is about, and what developers, the creators of this game, know what EVE is about.

You should never be safe, if you are undocked, anywhere in EVE. Anywhere.

You keep assuming developers are in your camp, no one knows what developers believe, unless they tell us. From what has happened, highsec has been significantly improved over the years, concord now guarantees that a suicide ganker is destroyed, no more perma ganks. And highsec is safe, if you buffer your ship, you have a rare chance of dying, that is safety, highsec does not make you impervious to attack.

[Bronson_Hughes]

@Sabus_Narian

Nullsec cannot lockdown all of highsec, the only potential nuisance that nullsec can do is attack player citadels, in which case you can defend, or simply live out of NPC stations or use other people’s citadels. And doing this in highsec risks invasion in their nullsec space by another alliance.

Except that trade hubs based in citadels have distinct advantages over those based in NPC stations. This is why the Keepstar in Perimeter is both so popular and profitable. By “simply living out of NPC stations”, you’re forcing smaller corps to lose out on the fees earned from citadel trade hubs, and you’re forcing them into less-appealing trading positions since their fees are inherently higher. This cuts into their profitability exponentially; lower income and fewer sales.

What you described is precisely how you lock down hisec (at least from a trade standpoint). And nullsec blocs are starting the process already, even without capital ships in hisec.

[Sabus_Narian]

Except that trade hubs based in citadels have distinct advantages over those based in NPC stations.

The only difference is the potential broker fee, which for trade hubs in citadels can be as low as 0, while in NPC stations the lowest is around 2.25% or so. However most if not almost all of the trade in jita happens in IV IV, not in perimeter in the citadel. You lose a small amount of margin profit yes, but that’s the price for the 100% safety of the NPC station.

By “simply living out of NPC stations”, you’re forcing smaller corps to lose out on the fees earned from citadel trade hubs, and you’re forcing them into less-appealing trading positions since their fees are inherently higher.

Losing the tax revenue of the citadel is the price for being unable to defend them, there are other ways for groups to raise revenue such as taxes, donations, buyback, or mining/pve ops that donate revenues to the group etc. And the difference in NPC tax vs citadels is slight, and can be significantly reduced with standings and skills.

This cuts into their profitability exponentially; lower income and fewer sales.

I disagree that a 2.25% or so broker fee is an exponential decrease in profit, even if someone spends the effort to kill all citadels in highsec, you can live out of NPC stations without a problem.

What you described is precisely how you lock down hisec (at least from a trade standpoint). And nullsec blocs are starting the process already, even without capital ships in hisec.

I disagree, worst case scenario you pay a few million more per industry job, and 2-4% more broker fees to put up buy and sell orders. You may run into issues with moon mining if the athanors keep getting attacked, but you can drop a single athanor per holding corp and make them pay constantly for wardec fees, and form an wardec alliance to ally with your structures and defend them.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Sabus_Narian

And I like that you do, continue to make arguments please, it helps the thread and the ideas discussed here.

Id say it doesnt help your cause and doesnt look good for you when we constantly respond, but you fail to respond back.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Sabus_Narian

Nullsec cannot lockdown all of highsec, the only potential nuisance that nullsec can do is attack player citadels, in which case you can defend, or simply live out of NPC stations or use other people’s citadels. And doing this in highsec risks invasion in their nullsec space by another alliance.

But youre saying that if its just 0.5-0.7, nullsec will be able to lockdown all 0.5-0.7 security space?

@Sabus_Narian

You keep assuming developers are in your camp, no one knows what developers believe, unless they tell us. From what has happened, highsec has been significantly improved over the years, concord now guarantees that a suicide ganker is destroyed, no more perma ganks. And highsec is safe, if you buffer your ship, you have a rare chance of dying, that is safety, highsec does not make you impervious to attack.

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

[image] These are based on Akita T’s Golden rules for new players, originally published on the old forums. Be able to afford a loss Never fly something (or with something in the cargo) you can’t afford to lose. Yes, not even in highsec. Meaning that you should not fly a ship you cannot afford to replace and refit. Consent to PvP You consent to PvP when you click “undock”. You are not safe in 1.0 security space. CONCORD is there to punish, not to protect. Get used to the idea. In most case…

Yes, i do know what the devs think, because they already responded. Go read that post, it was made by a dev and posted by a dev.

[Bronson_Hughes]

@Sabus_Narian

I disagree, worst case scenario you pay a few million more per industry job, and 2-4% more broker fees to put up buy and sell orders.

This statement tells me that you aren’t all that familiar with hisec manufacturing. Margins are exceedingly slim, and in many cases, what you described would shut down an otherwise profitable venture.

This is exactly what “shutting down hisec” means. If you make it unprofitable, you drive your competition out of business. Drive enough competitors out of business, and suddenly you have the situation with the nullsec blocs all over again, only with hisec manufacturing and trading. Can you imagine an EvE where every item for sale in Jita was priced exclusively by three or four primary entities? It would be a nightmare.

@Sabus_Narian

You may run into issues with moon mining if the athanors keep getting attacked, but you can drop a single athanor per holding corp and make them pay constantly for wardec fees, and form an wardec alliance to ally with your structures and defend them.

Except that the nullsec blocs would pretty much laugh off something as trivial as wardec fees and keep vaporizing any non-bloc Anathor that pops up before it could even pay itself off in moon mining sales. It’s like Walmart undercutting their competitors: sure, it costs them money in the short term, but in the long term it puts competition out of business. Plus…phat Anathor kills that everyone in the bloc will want to be on.

Don’t turn New Eden into Buy 'N Large…

[Salt_Foambreaker]

I don’t get why, when there is already an accepted problem with cap/super proliferation in the game, when we are seeing the detrimental effects in all sorts of ways, the devs would want to make it worse?

That seems completely counter productive.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Salt_Foambreaker

I don’t get why, when there is already an accepted problem with cap/super proliferation in the game, when we are seeing the detrimental effects in all sorts of ways, the devs would want to make it worse?

Apparently its also a good thing.

It will be a good thing that mineral prices will drop, and that your battleship may only cost 10 million isk to buy in the future, when all hisec ore fields are barren because of the 10 rorquals per system that undock and empty it at the beginning of downtime.

That way, even new players can purchase battleships with ease!

[Solonius_Rex]

@Bronson_Hughes

This statement tells me that you aren’t all that familiar with hisec manufacturing. Margins are exceedingly slim, and in many cases, what you described would shut down an otherwise profitable venture.

Yup, likewise i bet he will never understand why so many people move to places like the Mogul trading citadel in amarr, or the Tranquility tower in perimiter, when its actually a jump away, and therefore a massive inconvenience for traders to move large amounts of materials to. That extra few percent is huge, to serious traders.